steuben

Best spot for comment/discussion is to wander over the the writer's thread

Stable orbit is one that doesn't enter the atmosphere. The wiki has it as 50km for Duna. But you might not be close enough to a polar orbit for the scanner. It's tolerance is ±10 degrees from vertical.

Maybe. Try it. If you need help the writer's thread is available for discussion.

did it give you an error message when you tried?

Years ago, back at school, I introduced some friends of mine to Bridge Builder/Pontifex. A few months later I was threatened by a surprising number of partners... and a couple of profs. Something about the game eating up all their time. I was too busy running to really listen to their complaint. A couple of civil eng students I knew were being asked questions about how to design bridges in the game. Ah.. fun times. What has kept me hooked into KSP has been the presence of a story. Though it is a story that I've crafted. I've found that the games that keep me in them the longest have been the ones that allow a solid engaging story to be presented or emerge. Or they suffer from just one more turn syndrome. KSP is flexible enough to let you do many things... Planes sure. Rockets, by design. Rocket Planes, of course. Plain Rockets... maybe. Trains, been done. Cars, of many types. Boats, yes. KSP is a "LEGO®" game with both personal and game mechanics imposed challenges. And several acceptable breaks from reality, cause face it Space! is eldritchly huge. But, it's primary design is for you to put those courageous kerbals and their flying machines on, around, or both, every body in the Kerbin system. And maybe bring them back safely if you're nice, and capable of it.

To steal another game's tag line "Failure is fun". But remember KSP has a pretty steep learning curve at the front end. But, if he doesn't want to "game", what ever that means, pitch it as a lightweight sim. With some game elements/tropes mixed in. Though most to all of them can be dialed closer to reality with various mods. Pitch it. Show some actual game play, yours or someone else's. Then leave it. If they bite they bite. Alternately have them read the tvtropes page for KSP. [you know that site is dangerous, ed.]

Sigh.. yet another history of Kerbin... eventually... maybe... How do you present a Kerbin history that isn't just a list of years and one line descriptions of events? Probably a better question is, how to write it so that it isn't a boring slog? Okay, it's history, so I know that will be an uphill battle against boring. I know that part of the answer is slicing out the huge tracks of geologic history and pre-industrial history. This would leave us with roughly the time between the turns of the centuries. Roughly the English Edwardian Era to the 90s for us. Not that, with any luck, it would be long enough to get boring. My plan is just a precis of history for reference. I really don't want or need to cover the alternate history. So I'll end up with just the first few sections of the "book". Another part of how I'm thinking of preventing, maybe, some of the boring bits is stealing using elements of "The Shape of Things to Come" and "The Shadow Out of Time". But this hasn't been a frequently gimmick, probably for … reasons. At least I'm not immediately recalling many uses of it. The complexity and plausibility of it being a couple of reasons. A little bit abstract and unfocused. So to focus it a bit. I have this sketch of a book, "An Alternate Shape of History", penned by <TBD>, which is based on the notes of an unnamed essayist friend. This essayist collected the notes of a history of a different world, through a series of dreams/visions. On Kerbin; the League of Nations worked, the Cold War started without WW2, 'Da Bomb was developed in peace time and brown pants everyone ten years later, the MOL program got off the ground because high resolution remote visual sensing took longer to develop, etc. But to wrote a whole history in detail is more work than I'm prepared to put in. And to spare the slog of having to read through an entire world history only the modern history of the "Western" sphere is presented at an overview level. I've been chewing on this post for a week and can't seem to get my question much better than this. So before I make a third loop I am opening the question to discussion.

reboot and try again. then check your av logs there maybe something in there.

Actually they take less time to get to their destination then stuff going to Münar orbit. Well using conventional Δv trajectories or me screwing up the transfer burn. A few hours vs about a day. As for useless, I have found them a good source of early game funds, rep, and a bit of science. Leaving aside game engine restrictions. IRL this technique has been a point of active discussion since the middle of the last century. (A phrasing I find mildly distressing. [Me too, ed.]) The raw technology has existed for about as long. And on a fly-by analysis it does have its merits. However, there are a few things that argue against it being in the realistic progression category. 1.a. If the bright sparks at NASA and Space-X aren't using it for regular production launches then it has drawbacks that aren't visible on a first approximation analysis. b. The number of air launches is approximately 100 in the past 30-ish years versus 3000 for conventional rockets. 2. The throw weight, to borrow a term from ballistic missilery, of the NG Pegasus system is about 500 kg to LEO. Conventional system range from 2000 kg to 30,000 kg. The Saturn V massed in at around 120,000 kg 3. The first launch systems were converted/test bed higher throw weight ballistic missiles. 4. Someone crunched the math. The payload benefit IRL is roughly five percent more payload per launch. Not sure what the equivalent would be for KSP but it wouldn't expect more than fifteen percent.

might also be an auto-strut issue. how are they set?

There was a name generator website a while ago. But i think it has long since gone off line. I did manage to teach Excel to generate kerbal names based on some information some where in the forums. If you rummage around you should be able to find something though.

Quick answer with that question posed: You don't. If you don't know how to fix the file, you don't attempt to fix the file. Longer answer: With lots of work, trial and error, guess work, pen and paper, knowing what to look for, and a solid backup of the original. Doing any kind of complex work within the craft file starts at magic and _very_ quickly moves into voodoo. [http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/V/voodoo-programming.html 'cause few people understand voodoo within the coding context, ed.] The problem is that there is no easy way to know what the problem is, where it is, or how to fix it. The amount of time and effort to go in and work with the craft file is at least one order of magnitude greater than rebuilding the ship from scratch. I've only worked by hand with a craft file once. It was to create a nice 50 x 50 plane of the 2x2 structural panels for a design I was working on. It was a lot of work to get Excel to understand and work with file. And that was simple craft, for very broad definitions of craft. There is a reason why there are very few tools that do any complex work with the craft files. KSP itself is pretty much the best editor we've got.

The only alternative I can think of is hand editing the craft file. Which is doable... if you know what you're doing. And prepared to create mistakes that would cause the Kraken to recoil in horror.

Sounds like a weird condition developed in the ship itself... a proto-kracken if you will. Your best bet would be to rebuild the ship in the VAB/SPH and try again.

The following language packages are available through the KSP website: Spanish Japanese Russian Simplified Chinese French Italian German Brazilian Portuguese English

Can't steal what is freely given. Though malware, no. Leaving aside some of the edge-case softwares which to the best of my recollection have been removed from the code. Translated into English i) your data maybe going to or through countries that have fewer restrictions on how your data is handled that where you are living right now. ii) we get to post your gameplay iii) we get to use your gameplay when taking to hardware makers, hosting companies, and the ad guys iv) we're going to change this as needed/wanted Don't like it, the recycle bin is right there. As for it being a thing. Yes it is. *heads of to get his heat proof suit and the pop-corn maker*

Options are as follows: 1. Check you Recycle bin or OS equivalent. 2. Redownload it 3. if using steam check files... or what ever it is in there 4. Panic.

It is an easter egg baked into Module Manager.

Not sure exactly what it means, but the contracts will accept module construction.

To answer the question simply, True... mostly because the way you asked it wasn't in an exclusive or. In which case it would have been false. I tend towards using both, for reasons outlined here:

For me the translation convention applies for most cases, so it is snack, pl. snacks, vb. snack. Like the phrase "chrome steel and coconuts" doesn't literally mean the same thing in kerbish and infact is probably a word salad. But, when the metaphor is translated it comes out as that.

Sometime bits get lucky and catch exactly the right series of gravity boosts. Though it depends on how long your game has been running.

Teleportation can be serious juju if you're not careful with it. Depending of course where on the Moh's scale your story falls on. Sure it can get something to orbit right quick, but what about going the other way? Rummage up the essay "Theory and practice of teleportation" by Larry Niven. It's playing on the hard end of the scale, but it will give you an idea on what you have to work with.

2. No. 3. Avoid Jeb, or any of the O4. If you are going to include them have them as background characters, keep them out of focus. Just about everybody does Jeb, and Val, and Bob, and Bill. 1. Depends on the tech. Is the tech new, unproven, or undeveloped? Some combination of the three? Is it sci-tech so old and mundane that it isn't considered sci-tech anymore? How does the tech fit into the plot? Is it the plot?

*Claps Sequoia on the shoulder* <Alec Guiness voice>That's good. You've taken your first step into a larger world. </Alec Guiness voice> Now, challenge yourself. Try and land one with all the fuel. You can add parts as needed.